In Re Christian Esquivel v. the State of Texas

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00116-CR

IN RE CHRISTIAN ESQUIVEL

Original Proceeding

From the 66th District Court
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30,367

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator Christian Esquivel seeks mandamus relief in

the form of compelling the Respondent trial judge to hear and rule on his motion and

amended motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.

A court with mandamus authority “will grant mandamus relief if relator can

demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely ‘ministerial’ and that relator

has no other adequate legal remedy.” In re Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.—Waco

2003, orig. proceeding) (quoting State ex rel. Rosenthal v. Poe, 98 S.W.3d 194, 197–99 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2003) (orig. proceeding)). Consideration of a motion properly filed and

before the trial court is ministerial. State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34
S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (orig. proceeding). A trial judge has a

reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion

properly filed and before the judge. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). But that duty generally does not arise until the

movant has brought the motion to the trial judge’s attention, and mandamus will not lie

unless the movant makes such a showing, and the trial judge then fails or refuses to rule

within a reasonable time. In re Rangel, 570 S.W.3d 968, 969 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, orig.

proceeding); see Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228.

Esquivel bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to

establish his right to mandamus relief. See Rangel, 570 S.W.3d at 969; In re Blakeney, 254

S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). The record here does

not show that Esquivel has requested a hearing or ruling on either of the motions in

question or that the trial judge has then failed or refused to rule within a reasonable

time. Accordingly, we deny Esquivel’s petition for writ of mandamus.

MATT JOHNSON
Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
(Chief Justice Gray dissenting)
Petition denied
Opinion delivered and filed May 9, 2024
Do not publish
[OT06]

In re Esquivel Page 2